My fellow Conservative posters.... A word, please (No liberals)

The BBQ Pit
101

IzzyR

Oh, great. Something else to worry about. “Nice little antique shoppe you got here. Be a shame is something were to…happen to it!”

Cranky

Hell, fuck 'em all! Think of it as an outreach program. But when you want the Real Thing, you gotta get on home.

Scylla Sorry, dude, I know I was specificly enjoined. But I got this thing, like when someone tells me I can’t I just gotta! You understand, right? Oh. Come to think of it, probably you don’t.

The Devil made me do it the first time. Didn’t need his help any more after that.

102

Jeez, manhattan, you sound almost liberal there, expecting the Reader to take care of your problem for you. You should take matters into your own hands and open up a practice board yourself! :slight_smile:

let me know the url if you do…

103

wring,

The problem that you are having is that you are taking things too personally. This would be fine if they were addressed to you personally, but not when they are not. (This has come up with you in the past, IIRC).

If, for example, I see a poll showing that Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to think that Clinton is a dishonest liar, I might make a judgment that some political bias is at play. This does not mean that I am accusing each and every individual Republican of being motivated solely by political bias in making that determination. It does mean that looking at the groups as a whole it is reasonable to interpret the differences of opinion as deriving from bias. Please keep this distinction in mind when reading any posts of mine on this or a similar subject. If I want to make a definitive statement on why you, wring, believe what you believe I will do so directly. But I doubt if I will ever do so, as this is unlikely to become relevant.

In this instance, I am not bringing up Ace as a proof of anything. I am countering the notion, offered by Scylla, that the Ace banning can be used to offset bannings of conservatives, should a comparison be made. And my point here is that Ace had early on transgressed against a core liberal group, and against core liberal values. Now you or other individual liberals may believe that your objections to him were on purely non-partisan grounds. And you may well be right in any given case. But because Ace had strongly offended liberal sensitivities as well as conservative ones, with demonstrable negative results, he cannot be held up as a proof that liberals are as likely to be banned as conservatives.

I’ve already addressed the issue of showing why Ace was banned. I don’t see that you’ve added anything in your most recent post on the subject.

104

Tell you one damn thing fer sure: if december finds out how much shit got stirred up over his banning, he can give up his Viagra prescription.

105

Daniel, thanks for looking out for me. You’re a peach.
debaser, what he said. Any questions?

106

Damn hamsters ate my first attempt at this. Let me try again.

First of all IzzyR, if my post was unclear, I’m sorry. I was posting in haste and the “if” and “for instance” wound up in the second sentence rather than the first. I did think I was being clear.

Let me attempt to explain my view more explicitly.

In your first post that I responded to, you talk about how other posters “got into trouble”. I understood you to be saying that gobear doesn’t get into trouble because he’s not conservative.

But I don’t think that’s the issue. I think one can get piled upon for having certain views, and some of those views that will get you piled upon are traditionally conservative. But that’s not the same thing.

Take, for example, the issue of gay rights. I think that if you are against gay rights, then there’s a good chance of trouble for you. However, I think someone can hold conservative positions on issues 1 to 99 and still be in favor of gay rights. This theoretical poster would be conservative by any commonly understood definition of the word and may very well do fine. Conversely, I think someone could have liberal views on issues 1 through 99, be against gay rights and do poorly ‘round here. (Yes, these are extreme examples)

Similarly, Reeder recently started a thread calling Bush a jerk ‘cause he went on vacation. Didn’t go well for Reeder. But I wouldn’t conclude that liberals “get into trouble” around here for being liberals. They get into trouble for holding this position regardless of whether or not their views in total make them liberal or conservative.

It seems to be you require someone to hold a traditionally conservative view that tends to be troublesome around here before you concede that they are conservative and from that concluding that this place is hard on conservatives.

As an aside, there are plenty of views that’ll be hard on the holder that have nothing to do with politics. See the moon hoax thread.

I hope that came out better.

107

Some people will believe anything, so they can persist in their delusions of persecution, it seems.

I find it sad.

108

Apparently the semi tounge-in-cheek aim of my post wasn’t very clear, but that most certainly was intentional. I not particularly happy with one dollar = one vote democracy, but it is in many ways what we have in America, and IMO most conservatives have accepted that and decided to work with the system as it is, more than many liberals.
When it comes to religon and politics, rational argument will never convice anybody of anything, because they already have their beliefs and will never be convinced to change unless something of a direct personal nature effects them. Political debates are largely a waste of breath cause it’s not going to change a damn thing, so why bother to whine and bitch about political stuff?

109

You all realize that there is a perfectly good solution to all this, right?

Vote for me. I’m a rational moderate conservative independent (read: even if I don’t like the way things are being run, I won’t make any gigantic changes since they can only be worse than the status quo).

My platform: Democrats suck, Republicans blow.

I figure I should be getting my first campaign contibution in…hey, what time is it? :wink:

110

Wait…there are people protesting December’s banning? Really?? I did notice he was banned (which is pretty good for me)and read the stickie on why, but I haven’t noticed any outpours of regret. This is because I only visit the pit 3 or 4 times a month, isn’t it.

I can’t say I’m overly shocked that he was banned, and I do feel a slight twinge of regret over it (in the way I’d miss people making fun of New Englander’s pronuncation of car) but protesting seems a bit…silly. His OPs were always…well, they got a reaction, anyway. For those of us too well mannered to ever dare imply outside the pit that one could only be a liberal and intelligent if they were on the dole or trying to buy votes, there was someone there to blurt out our horrifying most secret and fleeting musings. You almost have to admire the all balls, no diplomacy save-for-not-using-pit-suited-language approach to writing an OP the way he would. I think I’ll miss that a little.

So, do we elect someone new to piss off the liberals now, or what?

111

Eeeww! Cranky! I used to respect you. Well, I hope you at least made them double bag it. Or maybe you were getting them to talk. Yeah, that’s it. Spy business. Wet work. Yeah, that I can respect.

And Scylla, boo fu… [stops, rereads OP], um, nevermind. :wink: Good on ya!

112

At least in The Clique, we have regular meetings and keep things relatively organized (by the way, Eris, it’s your turn to bring the donuts this week).

As for December, I never really gave a flying fuck about most of his posts, mostly because he very often formulated them in an either/or format, asked his questions in such a way that they assumed only two possible outcomes (which, I’m sure he believed, were “right” and “wrong”). Frankly, I consider people who ignore gray areas and “maybes” to be the worst kind of Ignorant of all.

I don’t buy the whole “mod bias” thing, either. Sure, I wouldn’t trust Coldfire any farther than I can throw 'im (and I’ve got weak arms), but the others are pretty cool. Even beyond that, the general tone of the board MAY, technically, be “liberal”, but it’s hardly bleeding-heart. Things swing various ways at different times. I remember a couple years back, when we had one poster (whom I respect, so don’t get me wrong) that started a SHITLOAD of threads about the election. There was quite a negative reaction to her prolific, liberal-slanted posts… but, VERY unlike December, she backed off a bit.

December’s flaw was that he couldn’t learn to just stop pushing the fucking envelope. He crossed the line on several occasions, and upon being rebuked, backed down, but only temporarily. Which is a shame… if he had the ability to temper his tenacity and fervency with a little bit of good ol’ fashioned reasonability, I doubt he’d have gotten a tenth of the negative reaction that he did.

113

Damn! I thought I was just taking a cheap shot at some careless phrasing. I didn’t realize that I was dead on target. So you’re satisfied with a system in which the people with the most cash get to reorganize the society in the way that brings them the greatest personal benefit? That’s very sad.

Your response, however, begs the question: why do you bother to post anything here? If you’d prefer to send me some dollars, just click on the email link, and we’ll arrange a transfer. You can set the amount. But I still won’t vote for you!

114

I don’t count? <sniff> Well, I’ve had worse things said about me…

Seriously, I guess I should be glad that no one identifies me as a one-trick pony, because that means I actually have some depth to my intellect and knowledge base. Although lately it would be easy to start referring to me as such, as I’ve gone from debating in several threads a week to essentially none except where something in particular interests me greatly, or it’s somewhere that I feel I have a special depth (such as the recent environment thread in GD, which happens to be something I’ve been sitting with lawyers about several times lately).

I don’t participate in gun control threads any more because I don’t feel that those threads are handled properly, and I simply cannot discuss them here. The threads are filled with outright lies, crazy mis-statements, drive-by’s, and attacks from both sides, and it doesn’t matter how much you research or rebut or show that someone is incorrect, they almost never retract, and when the next thread starts up next week, they’re in there saying the same exact things. Those threads are won by whoever yells loudest and longest, and I really have run out of time.

People are surprised that I like women, because I don’t really mention it except in jokes and side-references. Many people are surpised at my sexuality when they click on my profile, and wonder why I don’t appear in any of the 1e+28 G/L/B/TG threads. Quite honestly, because the “Gay Mafia” is made up of a core of intelligent and well-spoken Members who are more than capable of presenting a strong and complete argument against intolerance and hate. Of course, as I’ve personally found out hate speech against a person’s sexuality seems to only be hate speech depending on who the victim is. :rolleyes:

I guess I also can’t count as a partisan because I will change my viewpoint on something if an argument is presented to me that is strong enough - something which appears to be uncommon here, as some view changing a viewpoint or position as some sort of admission of weakness or lack of “manhood”. Over years here I went from pro-Bush to anti-Bush, from pro-War to uncertain and worried about-War, from anti-CO2 limits to pro-CO2 limits, and from pro-death penalty to uncertain-death penalty. All of those are moves from what is identified as “conservative” towards “liberal”. However, also I went from pro-Italian food to pro-Indian food as well during that time, so I’m uncertain where that leaves me. :wink:

I guess if I’m not lumped into the “conservative” camp any more, I’ve become even more anonymous than I thought. I’ve gone the full circle of life on this message board, and all that remains is to be banned in a firey blowout. :wink:

115

Edmund Burke?

:wink:

116

I really appreciate the thoughtful and rational answers this thread is getting.

I like that nobody is piling on anybody else, and that we are having discussions rather than accusations.

It just naturally goes to show what happens when everybody just shuts up and listens to me.

117

Sounds like it’s time for me to pop in with a tangential-to-irrelevant stab at driveby humor then. :smiley:

Seriously, though: This is the kind of discussion that makes this board worth participating in. Even though, by the time I finish reading many of the threads, what I wanted to say has often been expressed already – and better than I could have formulated it. :slight_smile: Some of the people I’m coming to respect the most, I don’t agree with on a lot of things – but your arguments are intellectually stimulating and a joy to parse through. Sometimes I’m actually forced to rethink my position, and even change my mind. :eek:

I sure would hate to argue with someone who didn’t have any biases. What kind of antiseptic vacuum would it take to produce that, huh? Where would be the passion that would animate the argument? OTOH, Anthracite, you’ve got a good point about certain topics not being worth arguing on – positions are so hardened that the debates are too much heat, very little light.

I’m going to leave the whole liberal/conservative debate alone for now – this thread has already done an excellent job of illuminating the many angles from which it can be viewed. Read my posts and peg me as you will!

118

Oh… now I get it ! December wasn’t banned because he was a Conservative. He was banned because most of the posters on this board are children. Maybe fifty-year-old children but children non-the-less.

And all spoiled children whine and point fingers if they don’t get their way.

Just curious, do any of you realize how shrill your voices sound when you bemoaned the trangressions of poor** December**?

Nah. You poor folks you don’t, so please forgive me while I waste perfectly good Alabama air and recount the grievous sins of December that led to his abrupt dismissal…

Uh…let’s see…he, meaning December, in a mean-spirited way, tricked other posters into making inflamatory remarks about his views. This technique is known in the message board buisness as “trolling”. And “trolling”, is not permitted on boards that have come to reflect the ultra sensitive and politically careful man that abounds today.

Damn Dopemasters, when they put the witches in stocks at Salem they had stiffer cause than so-called “trolling”.

I’m sure that December will forgive you but I’ll have to think about it long and hard.

119

Milum:

I have 9000 posts. 9000. I think this is the first time that I’ve ever made reference to my post count, as I don’t really think that saying a lot necessarily means you know a lot.

But consider this.

For the most part, December and I were on the same side. He was an ally.

Over several years of reading and interacting with the chap, I have concluded that he was a very poor ally.

His provocative dishonesty was habitual. He made me and my beliefs look bad by association.

His behavior was long-term, profound, and, IMO inexcusable.

You only have 400 post. You’ve only been here since February. This latest incident was just one of literally dozens if not hundreds of similar incidents.

Now, my post count and longevity here is not an argument. However, it does represent a foundation to my opinion that you do not share.

You are free to disagree with my assessment that his banning was fair, proper and overdue, and that he had been given every possible chance.

However, in order for you to disagree intelligently you will need to examine his long-term track record. You will need to be aware of it.

That long-term track record provides a clear context for recent events.

You do not have the context. To disagree intelligently. I’d suggest you search December for the past year and spend an hour or so scanning his posts.

If you do that, your opinion may change. Or, it may not. Your convictions may be strengthened as you examine the actual evidence. Perhaps you will see it in a new light.

Who knows?

Please don’t be insulted but hopefully you can see that that without being familiar with the long-term history, your opinion of it is not particularly valuable.

120

Anyone who thinks december’s banning was questionable, or that he was unfairly treated, if you would please just read the opening post of this thread. Take a few minutes and sit and think about it after reading and decide for yourself if you think it is possible, just possible.

If you are intrigued by the OP, please consider reading this comment out of the ensuing discussion.

Thank you,
Steven